Great. Feminism properly stands separate from Democratic and Republican politics. NOW notes that at the end of the Letterman shaming:

[I]'s important to note that when Chelsea Clinton was 13 years old she was the target of numerous insults based on her appearance. Rush Limbaugh even referred to her as the "White House dog." NOW hopes that all the conservatives who are fired up about sexism in the media lately will join us in calling out sexism when it is directed at women who aren't professed conservatives.

What a surprise. The NOW seems to understand that they are the creation of a Christian culture that honors the value of women. Their power has been the shaming of our society for its not always living up to those ideals. At last the NOW leadership speaks out about the disrespect of women associated with Letterman's audience publically encouraging the denegrating of a woman Governor and her daughters for political purposes. On the other hand, his "jokes" may easily win Letterman an Emmy Award for bravery in trashing the only enemy feared by President Obama.

Tim, I was thinking the same thing. I'm sure this statement was part of a process, and they couldn't afford to offer a straight up condemnation with out going back 15 years to find something to hang on the otherside. Oh well, I guess we should be thankful for what we can get sometimes.

This is why they needed to. It was okay to laugh off a few jokes along the way, but these were being use not as humor but at attack, and now Sarah Palin has sympathy and support. People won't be quite as willing to use this line of attack in the future.

Our society's in your face sexualization of everything makes this kind of thing inevitable. As long as the "Women as Sex Objects" theme continues, men will look on women as sex objects! That is why many successful women, i.e. Hillary, try NOT to be feminine. Ever notice that aside from being connected to Bill you never heard sexy comments about her. Not so for the Alaska governor or her daughters.

I am serious - what has changed to make them think that women who do not agree with them are worthy of protection or even comment? There is something else going on besides just "choosing to value principles over politics". I do not believe that they have really changed to believe that women who are off the reservation deserve respect.

If there's a slur to hurled, you can be sure a woman will be on the receiving end. Even when the man who hurls it is a creepy old guy who skanks it up all over Berks County when you are busy working very hard to film the children and make them wholesome meals.

This is soooo wonderful! But the only thing that's missing is their endorsement of sexual ignorance (aka abstinence-only education) and other pitiful excuses for teen pregnancy. Then they'll be with the program!

NOW being applauded by authoritarian social conservatives? Is there any better way for them to reveal their irrelevance?

And Elliott's partially right. The in-your-face sexualization of everything results from repression and an unwillingness to deal with sexual matters honestly.

I did hear some nasty, sexualized remarks about Hillary Clinton back in the 90's. And the comments about her pant suits, large derriere, and even general un-feminineness are really gibes aimed at her sexuality.

We don't hear those same kind of gibes today because she's a) older, and more grandmotherly than before b) she's an established figure and so now she acts in accordance with what we expect of her rather than some feminine ideal, and c) Hillary actually looks good compared to the current Adolescent in Chief.

None of the above is indication that I approve of Hillary Clinton. Far from it, but the fact remains, the woman was attacked on the basis of her sex.

"The in-your-face sexualization of everything results from repression and an unwillingness to deal with sexual matters honestly."

What does that even mean? What is "dealing with sexual matters honestly"? I know that you're just repeating what your sociology professor said, but have you ever thought about the meaning of that vague and ridiculous statement?

But the only thing that's missing is their endorsement of sexual ignorance (aka abstinence-only education) and other pitiful excuses for teen pregnancy. .

How exactly is informing kids that abstaining from sex is the only 100% sure fire way of avoiding pregnancy translated into sexual ignorance?

I went to a Catholic school for 12 years and I even knew what a condom was by the time I hit 7th grade. They were hanging on the wall behind the pharmacist.

Now they're right next to the ace bandages and Pepto Bismal and come in assorted sizes, colors and flavors for the more adventurous. Yet kids still don't seem to bother using them even when we give them away. Guess it gets in the way of all that spontenaity.

Concerning jokes about Sarah Palin in general;While she is obviously still fair game, given that she is now just a footnote in U.S. political history, making jokes about her is like continuing to tell Dan Quayle jokes. It seems to me to be comically lazy.

you are a hoosier weatherman. you should know the continental climate. you should remember what made your comedy human was the tender moments in between the laughs. remember kurt vonnegut, fellow hoosier, and a small child. your moms apple pie. you naming your son after harry. in the future use that as your lithmus test if a joke ahould be said or if the publicity is worth the noise?

remember the balls state is dependent on some guy living in a glass jar. sometimes it is better to can the joke.

NOW is a day late and a dollar short - they find it OK for a woman of the Right to be a victim of mysogyny, or one who is opposed to abortion. Where were they when Palin, as the 2cd woman ever in our history to run for VP, was being called a cunt? Are we supposed to believe CBS did not really know it was the 14 yr. old at the game? bullshit -

In (very slight) defense of Letterman, the fact is that he made this joke because there was a long, accepting climate of making these kinds of jokes. NOW did not speak up during other forms of Palin bashing. The jokes against Palin and her family have been intense and predictable for a long time.

So, Letterman was just making fun like all the other kids around. I honestly don't think there was anything unique or particularly new about his jokes.

Letterman just got with the hot potato. The music stopped, and the Palin's reactions helped the music stop.

Letterman's big problem was that he basically confirmed the fact he's now an unoriginal follower in humor, only able to take up what has been done to death by so many others, and he got caught being entirely unoriginal when people got particularly fed up with the jokes.

To add, I don't think it's at all helpful to go off on NOW or get offended at the Rush reference. That's changing the conversation yet again, and just when it is moving a right direction. No one is really ever convinced by self-righteousness, so it's a lot more helpful to thank NOW for what they said, encourage them to keep this balanced awareness going, and make sure that those on the right do the same.

As for the "burka-wearing Islamic cultures", they deal with repression by codifying it in law - and hence there is no backlash. There is no "in your face" reaction. But that is because they do not enjoy freedom - freedom of expression or the 1st amendment. They have "morality police" that beat women for showing too much hair. Perhaps that's the way the McCarthyite "Pogo" prefers it.

Be honest now, Pogo... You envy that way of life now, don't you?

Or maybe you just have trouble getting it up nowadays and like to pretend you envy a repressive mindset because of it.

NKVD said... I am serious - what has changed to make them think that women who do not agree with them are worthy of protection or even comment?

Two things. (1) The cumulative effect of all the hypocrisy going back to Lewinsky had reached the point where they had to take a stand here for their own viability, and making a stand here was made easier by (2) the fact that they aren't all that loyally tied to the Ø, indeed many are hostile to him after the way Hillary was treated during the campaign.

Kate Gosselin said... If there's a slur to hurled, you can be sure a woman will be on the receiving end.

I agree with your larger point, but it nevertheless happens to men and women.

SOmeone said about Letterman a little while back that he's only really funny when he does the skits outside of the studio. I would agree - the velcro wall, the stint at McDonalds, the US Olympic Team things - they're all classics. He doesn't seem to be veryt good at he monologue or just telling jokes.

Oh, wait. I do remember that after he started Late Night, he was on Johnny Carson once a year after that. He would always sit in the seat and always - every year - talk about the plane ride out to California - THAT was hilarious! But as a stand-up, poor guy just doesn't have it.

"To add, I don't think it's at all helpful to go off on NOW or get offended at the Rush reference."

It didn't even register to me, and it's certainly not offensive that they mentioned that incident. They were right to condemn Limbaugh back then. Even though it was a long time ago, I expected that they'd mention it. Liberals always need to add that sort of thing when denouncing other liberals. It's sort of like wearing a talisman against the evil eye. They don't want anybody to get "the wrong idea" about them, you know. I don't begrudge them their superstitions.

Tell me your opinions on the efficacy of abstinence-only education - let alone the policy of promoting it (something a libertarian might have an opinion about - assuming he had a brain and knew what libertarianism really was) - and then we'll have something to talk about.

Of course, that's what scares the hell out of you. So you just avoid the relevant discussion and let the ADHD symptoms take hold of you rather than approach the issue rationally.

Which is, of course, idiotic. But as a fellow libertarian, I respect your decision to be a dumbfuck. Just not sure why you pursue that course intentionally, is all. Feel free to explain.

All of you who continue to thrash this little incident out are doing nothing except playing into Letterman’s rehabilitation tour. You let an unfunny has-been, if he ever was to begin with, old man, stay front and center for going on three days now. He couldn’t have done it better, and now his jump in ratings will give him another year on his contract. Bad publicity? No such thing. Free publicity? All he could ever use. And we continue to just rise to the bait.

NOW timed its entrance just as the kerfuffle had peaked, giving Letterman an extra day in the spotlight. NOW has rarely chastised one of it’s own (the liberal/leftist celebrity caste), and when they do, it’s usually a “tut-tut, you got carried away, we know you didn’t mean it, so let’s play nice” tap on the wrist. Fit’s into Letterman’s offer for Palin to come on his show, because her refusal is interpreted by him as “See? See what I mean here, folks? I try to be nice but there’s no decency in that trailer trash.”

Win-win for David and CBS. And NOW.

The only thing enjoyable in this is watching Jeremy jump to the bait, over and over and over. He will be so tired out in the next few months

What a tightrope liberals like MUL must walk -- I thought I saw him sweating a bit when attacking the oppressiveness of those "burqua-wearing Islamic cultures" (the scare quotes were his), while at the same time taking care not to step over that line and possibly justify Chimpy McHitlerburton's war for oil.

Then they have to try to defend their attack dog, Letterman, for making "slut" jokes, while defending the schools' role in training the next generation of promiscuous women with no self-esteem -- MUL's last, best chance of ever getting laid.

Paddy O, I too think it's regrettable for NOW that they had to reach back more than 15 years to find a qualifier.

But palladian is right in his observations. A 3/4 loaf (not Titus)is better than none.

In other friendly "enemy" action, the ACLU informed the homeowner in San Diego that it would defend him if necessary in his complaint against the County of San Diego for seeking to halt the Bible Study held in the man's home. The County had sent a Cease and desist notice to the man, but after international upcry, it rescinded.Just nice to know that the ACLU still stands on some principal.

As for the Rush thing, not that he needs defending (and I am not a fan of his style), but that supposed Rush comment wasn't what Al Franken and Molly Ivens made it to be at the time. It was referencing a in an out column in the news paper - in - Clinton - out Bush, in cute kid (Chelsea) out cute dog (Millie) and the pictures were accidentally switched. He did apologize immediately and after the brouhaha.

And I recall a LOT of media features of Chelsea on Today/GMA after the election. Interviewing her classmates, and article/op ed in the times about her "awkward charm." Of course there was a front page shot of Socks surrounded by reporter mics too. Then the Clintons got a hold of it. Good for them. I recall it because I thought the coverage was cute and who wasn't awkward at her age.

Again, this is my long memory which may not be 100% accurate, but that's what I recall.

MUL, I don't think I ever stated that Letterman should be silenced by the government. I'm not sure where your idea that conservatism is some anti-Bill of Rights movement comes from. The 1950s?

Consider the most recent serious attack on free speech: Campaign finance reform. The one type of speech that the founders had sought to protect above all others, even their sacred porn, is now metered out by the government. If you want to put a political ad in the paper, you have to get their permission.

I'm honestly impressed that someone as hateful as you are would actually show that much consideration to a sex partner, Palladio. Bravo!

"Of course, you seem to have confused speed and duration."

Well, thanks for pointing out the distinction! But to rely excessively on speed gives me the impression that your lovers might commit suicide if you slowed down long enough to actually allow them to reflect on just what kind of a person they were having sex with.

I don't care what young breeders do with their private bits, frankly. I believe in a complete, unexpurgated education in all subjects, which certainly includes teaching the fact that abstaining from penetrative sex is the only 100% effective method of preventing unwanted pregnancies as well as STDs and that prophylaxis is a less effective but still better than nothing way alternative. I have said nothing about "abstinence-only" education.

I also have very lukewarm enthusiasm for the idea of public school in general, but as I don't have a strong preference either way and don't really follow the subject, I have nothing more to say on the subject.

I will not, however, allow you to pretend that you're a "libertarian". You're not going to do to that word what you and the rest of the so-called progressives did to the once-noble word "liberal".

Ahh, the ol' "progressive" canard that criticism = repression. Progressives tend to support "Free Speech" when the speaker is speaking their language. They're always shocked when they get out of college and learn that other people with different ideas were also (mistakenly I'm sure!) given that right.

MUL, I was just admiring that photo of an owl that you use in your profile. I think I can just make out, reflected in his eye, the image of one of the last remaining Northern Idaho ground squirrels, just before he swooped down, picked him up, and stuffed him down his beak whole.

"I will not, however, allow you to pretend that you're a "libertarian". You're not going to do to that word what you and the rest of the so-called progressives did to the once-noble word "liberal"."

If that is the case then you will have to show where and how coercively I favor any government action.

The problem with strict libertarians (like partisan true-believers of any stripe) is that they believe that they can pretend that they are above politics - when in reality they are anything but.

As for what you can "allow me to pretend", anyone who respects the idea of individual initiative and not coercing others (which is what libertarians ground their principles in) should take note of where their own autonomy ends and another's begins. Coercion doesn't just begin with the government. When other individuals act coercively that's where libertarians differentiate themselves from anarchists and prefer government intervention. But if you were less of a bully, who had more respect for people's rights, you'd get that.

If what NOW was doing was criticism, then I'd expect a more detailed explanation of it in this blog post. But all that the author cared about was that NOW is a group that has clout and that they issued a denunciation, period. If the denunciation had content - let alone intellectual merit - I'd welcome their "criticism". As you can see, I don't have a problem with debate. But absent any of that, I am considerably assured of the fact that what is being applauded was the fact that the statement/denunciation had some kind of coercive power to it, and any critical merits behind it were trivial. As are yours.

Ahhh... but as you can see, that gets us the meat of the matter. I actually have something I've got to finish up now, and some plans later tonight. I'll probably be able to check back in about an hour or so and look forward to debating the merits of different forms of coercion with you, my libertarian friend, Palladian!

That should give you about enough time for an hour-long session with one of your amours... Enjoy the interlude; maybe it will inspire your intellect as well and prepare you for more arguments regarding libertarianism and coercion!

Montana Urban Legend, there is nothing particularly libertarian about supporting this or that sex education experiment. Like, at all.

No matter what you're doing, you're taking people's money (time/their life) away from them to educate their children in values that you may not hold and don't want your children exposed to. That's pretty damned antithetical to the entire basis for libertarianism.

The only sex education program that actually comports with libertarian principles is the one that I got, lo these 30 years ago, a program that limits itself to teaching the biology of reproduction and leaves out any discussion of the relative morality, or desirability of any kind of practice. That includes no talk on various forms of birth control. period.

M U L... Do you see NOW as in interest group speaking out for the women's interests? If so, then the surprise would be that NOW did not go silent on the "Palin is a slut with slutty daughters too" meme because of seeing an overriding interest in protecting abortion rights from a Republican politician. The Professor seems to hope this is not an aberration for NOW, but will be a righteous stand for women which will continue as NOW's assigned role. The wisdom of that tactical change is that they will get contributions from moderates and the Republicans dissatisfied with their old White Male leadership. Incidentally, sexual restraints as social mores is the beginning of civilization, not the end of it.

Rush points out that Imus was talking ad lib, called the Rutgers women nappy headed ho's, apologized up and down, did everything to make amends, and got fired by the same company that supports Letterman, who was talking on script and dismissed the whole thing.

That's by the by, since I think both comedians are in the right and the public stink is bogus moralizing by both right and left; the interesting thing is that not long ago Rush would not give Imus the time of day, beyond dismissing him as a broken-down disk jockey.

Now he gets minutes of discussion.

The back-then was Rush's reaction to being parodied by Imus's Rob Bartlett's impersonation of Rush as racist and Jew-hating, not perceiving that what was being parodied was Rush's bigger-than-life persona, not his politics. Bartlett made his bigger-than-life into bigger-than-life bigotry, to comic effect.

I don't know if Rush now gets it, or has decided to forget it for some other advantage as a talking point.

I can't help but notice they had to go back over 15 years to find a (partly made-up) conservative incident so they could tar the right along with Letterman.

They didn't have to, actually. As was pointed out at Hot Air, a little googling finds plenty of recent examples of such rhetoric about Michelle Obama and Hillary Clinton.

There's so much mythologizing of the idea that women are undermining each other. I work with pro-life feminists all the time; the most well-funded and best-organized group dealing with family violence in NOLA is Catholic Charities' Family Justice Center. They're great people, and we have lots in common to care about. I also work with business women's networks, chock full o' Republicans and independents, who provide scholarships for my students, and do all sorts of community service projects. I hope NOW, and conservative women's groups, continue to take advantage when presented with shared opportunities to honestly critique popular and political culture from their respective feminist viewpoints.

NKVD said... Something isn't right here - Clinton was getting knobbers from an employee the same age as his ugly daughter and there was not a peep from the Feminazis. Why are they complaining now?

I think they realized just how much ridicule damage they took, being seen in their President Clinton kneepads - after calling for the heads of Republican targets.Camille Paglia ridiculed them as infantile little girls remorselessly for comments like Steinhams that "one grope of a woman, maybe two...and Clinton was accused of...before he understood the woman objecting to being groped..but not 3".Others called it the "two-honk ass or hooter grope defense".

I believe Althouse herself was of a belief that the feminist Clinton defense exposed them as being more the liberal identity group Democrat activists..than women seriously believing in advancing women, regardless of politics.

Palladian: the other similarity was the particular method of asserting that a particular post somehow was evidence that he/she had prevailed--as in: "Thanks for conceding the argument with your 12:50 post." Even though of course, there was no such concession.

The only sex education program that actually comports with libertarian principles is the one that I got, lo these 30 years ago, a program that limits itself to teaching the biology of reproduction and leaves out any discussion of the relative morality, or desirability of any kind of practice. That includes no talk on various forms of birth control. period.

Huh? A genuinely libertarian sex ed program would discuss all forms of birth control in a factual way.

Teaching only the biology of reproduction isn't a libertarian stance, but an anti-education and entirely useless stance. It's the cowardly way out of teaching actual truth.

This is soooo wonderful! But the only thing that's missing is their endorsement of sexual ignorance (aka abstinence-only education) and other pitiful excuses for teen pregnancy. Then they'll be with the program!

NOW being applauded by authoritarian social conservatives? Is there any better way for them to reveal their irrelevance?

And Elliott's partially right. The in-your-face sexualization of everything results from repression and an unwillingness to deal with sexual matters honestly.

I suppose that refusing to engage an argument isn't technically a concession. Perhaps it's a sign of not being sure of what one thinks. Maybe it's an abdication? Either way, no rebuttal was offered, the line of discussion is done. No worries either way.

I should add that I don't like Letterman's joke and I do think that one should refrain from making comments about the children of politicians who are actively campaigning or performing their official duties in office. The question is why, in this case, was so much outrage provoked. And I think the answer to that is more complicated than anyone here will admit. Of course, sex between grown men and 14-year old girls is wrong. But I don't think that's what everyone is upset about. It offers a technical reason for outrage, but it's neither what Letterman intended to comment about nor what his detractors are really upset about.

Traditional Guy makes some good points. NOW would certainly like to see themselves as an interest group speaking out for women's interests. The problem with that, however, is why women's sexuality is seen as wrong, horrible, demeaning, unmentionable, etc., and why NOW takes such a stance. As I said, I think it has to do with America being a sexually repressed society - which is a non-gender specific thing and which hurts the society in a bunch of ways - and which hurts women moreso than any other group. Of course, Traditional Guy is free to disagree, but he offers no evidence as to why he does.

He is also free to applaud the fact that they have taken a stance removed from partisan concerns. Again, I suppose this is a smart thing to do, for them. But, as I said, I do not agree with an implicit endorsement of repressing sexuality and discussions of it. So to the extent that NOW is not concerned with the issue of repression, I don't see that they have much use to anyone in particular.

In the 70s, they were about women having equal opportunities in the arena of economics. I have no problem with that. But like many progressive movements, they may have outlived their relative usefulness in that respect and have moved on to trying to stay relevant by being a player in the culture wars. But so long as one of the parties in the culture wars favors abstinence-only education, that party will have to make common cause with repression and other things that are harmful.

I say it's fine to repress yourself if you don't trust that your instincts are good for yourself or for others. But should everyone be compelled to make this assumption about themselves? I don't see why and I can't respect the conclusion that it implies.

Teaching only the biology of reproduction isn't a libertarian stance, but an anti-education and entirely useless stance. It's the cowardly way out of teaching actual truth.

Why? The biology of reproduction is the basis. How does pregnancy happen. Sperm, gametes, hormones, gestation. No one can argue with the facts.

What methods can/should be used to prevent unwanted pregnancy. The rest of the teaching is morality based and subject to personal interpretation. The education system wants to intrude into and trample upon the moral teachings of the parents over their objections.

I'm glad that NOW finally took a stance on the misogyny directed at the Palins and at other women. This should not be a politically charged (Republican vs Democrat Right vs Left) issue. Let's just see if the NOW organization can keep to the high road.

David -- lovely? Really? I don't want to be mean, but let's not be as unrealistic and condescending about Chelsea as the fawning press is over "MichellO", comparing her to fashion models.

They're both average-looking women.

And with really good jobs, coincidentally; Chelsea was hired at around $200K per year fresh out of college, as a "hedge fund adviser"...after majoring in history and international relations. See, that's what hedge funds look for in advice -- 24 year olds who have never held an actual "job". And Michelle had her salary nearly triple in her hospital board position, just coincidentally, when her husband was elected to the state senate. And now she's in control of AmeriCorp, and is in the process of choosing its CEO.

Great thing is that Willow the 14 year old isn't a public figure, only her mom is.

By that standard, let the defamation lawsuit fly, and make way for CBS' and Letterman's financing of her college education.

That would be the sweetest outcome here, and I'm speaking as one who does not generally support frivolous/nuisance litigation. In this case, though, Letterman/CBS/Worldwide Pants have made themselves such rich targets in their hubris that they have earned the right to be pantsed and pickpocketed by this sweet little girl.

DBQ; No one can argue with the facts of what various forms of birth control exist. Please read the quoted comment--the author advocated teaching ONLY how reproduction occurs and to NOT teach about birth control. I don't believe teachers should advocate anything nor teach morality, but they should present the facts.

(Interestingly, the insistence by the right in California on adding an emphasis on sex within marriage is what caused consternation with proposition 8.)

To show how little MUL actually knows about libertarianism: a true libertarian is against mandated curriculums in public schools, and depending on how strict a libertarian he/she is they're against public schools all together.

Education is the responsbility of the parents, and if private schools spring up to supplement parental education then it is the responsibility of parents to pay for their existence.

If those private schools choose to engage in sex education, then they do so at the pleasure of their patrons - the parents who directly pay for and ultimately decide what does and doesn't get taught.

There is no government role in sex education of any kind - abstinence-only or otherwise - because the government has no role in providing moral guidance.

THAT is the libertarian argument about sex eduction. What MUL was arguing was typical liberal politics. He's as much a libertarian as Bill Maher is. ::rolls his eyes"

Bill Maher (and probably MUL) thinks that libertarianism is about legalizing pot, and that if you're for legalization that makes you a libertarian.

Libertarian political philosophy says nothing about private actors or collection of private individuals such as NOW, MUL is just making it up as he goes.

Maybe he should educate himself on what a word really means before he goes around claiming to be one.

People object to the way Palin's been treated because she wouldn't have been treated this way were she male. No one suggested that Obama was a "flirt", or promiscuous, despite the fact that I've seen more of his moobs than I have Palin's boobs.

Is a woman allowed to enter the political fray without someone commenting on her lipstick, or her eyeliner, or her rack? Why can a man enter politics without someone speculating about his pecker length?

As far as I can tell, your whole argument amounts to this: "Palin shouldn't be upset because there's nothing wrong with being a slut".

And don't forget that Michelle Obama's $300K/yr job was so vitally important that it was eliminated when she resigned.

Yeah..it was vitally important to bribe a senator by hiring his wife for a do-nothing job, but since no other senator's wives were available the position was no longer needed. But we're supposed to accord Michelle Obama some sort of respect because she allowed herself to be used as a tool of obvious corruption?

I suppose a absolutist libertarian would think that there shouldn't be any public education period, which makes the issue of curriculum in those schools a moot point. But so long as the government is in the business of informing people, educating children, etc., I can't see any libertarian endorsing the idea that it should be making use of that role by misinforming them. Or refusing to lambast parties that would like it to.

Funny that you should call me an idiot considering you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

An "absolutist" would demand NO public education period, not quibble about whether the government was teaching this or that with regard to sex education. It's right in the name you see, an "absolutist" isn't going to settle for quibbling over whether or not you dotted the "i," he wants the whole sentence erased.

Like I said, you're the one who has no idea what you're talking about. I correctly stated the libertarian position: you want to twist it so far from its actual meaning as to be completely unrecognizable. You are arguing pure liberalism, nothing more nothing less. That you want to call it something it isn't doesn't change what it is.

As Lincoln famously asked how many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg. The answer, of course, is still 4 because just because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it one.

You want to call your Leftism libertarianism, but that doesn't make it so. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it so. You were and are wrong about libertarianism, and the more you argue about the more ignorant you look.

You claim to be something you're not because evidently you're ashamed to call yourself what you obviously are: a Leftist (or a liberal or a progressive or whatever name you guys want to use these days).

"People object to the way Palin's been treated because she wouldn't have been treated this way were she male."

Quite right. After the Bush debacle, people expected that any male politician should have a brain. Many also expected this of any serious female presidential or VP nominee.

"No one suggested that Obama was a "flirt", or promiscuous, despite the fact that I've seen more of his moobs than I have Palin's boobs."

Sounds like your issue, not mine.

"Is a woman allowed to enter the political fray without someone commenting on her lipstick, or her eyeliner, or her rack? Why can a man enter politics without someone speculating about his pecker length?"

It is a canard to assert that men don't face jokes and "attacks!" based on their looks. Ross Perot's ears, Barack Obama's ears, Barack Obama's skinny frame. The difference is that male politicians don't complain about it.

If a male showed the size of his member, I don't suppose he'd have standing for people to complain about it. But he wouldn't do this because of how repressed the society is.

People shouldn't think that a reference to anyone's sexuality or even sexual characteristics, female or otherwise, is somehow degrading of that person. Such remarks are a statement about the person making the reference. So I refuse to associate with the mindset that justifies that such stupid remarks could be allowed to have a harmful effect in the first place. I find it impossible to legitimize them as such.

Not only "will sticks and stones break (one's) bones but names will never hurt me", but the kind of name reflects on what is going on in the mind of the person who comes up with the insult.

Good for NOW, however in mentioned the Limbaugh incident...I may be wrong but it seems like SNL had some not so polite characterization of Chelsea as well. (I really did feel sorry for her at the time, 13 is an awkward age for a lot of kids to be thrust into the spotlight).

What's worse, to be called ugly or to be called out as a slut? I'm really not sure.

I have productive things to do today and don't have time for your political games.

You show that you know as little of liberalism as you believe that I know of libertarianism. Ever hear of "John Locke"?

Read up sometime.

Please let me go. I have a job with the Tennessee Valley Authority to catch up on. It's a big one. We progressive make no small plans. We also believe in competence (as long as you -- or the taxpayers -- are paying us).

You are a much more competent partisan pundit than I am. I do give you that, though. But then again, you've sworn allegiance to a cause, instead of to reality and pragmatism.

We've established that you're the one who doesn't understand the terms he's throwing around, and I'm the one who needs to read a book?

Much like Jeremy, you assume that I'm in lockstep with a party, but much like Jeremy you are absolutely wrong. But like Palladian, I'm not going to let either you or Jeremy hijack the language and twist it into such contortions that words no longer have meaning, rewrite history or use some fantastic display of illogic to make an inanity seem like reality.

When you want to read a book or two and understand what you're saying before you say it, then I'll be happy to re-engage you on what libertarians actually do or would support and what they wouldn't. Until then, your ignorance on the subject has disqualified you from any reasonable discussion of the topic.

[And hey, if you want to be a Leftist, it's OK. We'll probably disagree more than we agree, but you don't have to be ashamed of calling yourself one any more. Besides "Leftist" is much easier to spell and won't make your head hurt as much.]

It is a canard to assert that men don't face jokes and "attacks!" based on their looks. Ross Perot's ears, Barack Obama's ears, Barack Obama's skinny frame. The difference is that male politicians don't complain about it

The issue isn't that she is being attacked based on her looks. The issue is that she is being attacked based on her gender AND is being sexualized. The fact that she is good looking is just icing on the cake for the liberals who also want to denigrate her based on her attractiveness.

A comparison to this would be the sexualizing of the "man-toy". Good looking, sexy and therefore probably stupid. He gets minimized because of his perceived sexuality. Women get this type of discrimintion all the time even if they aren't good looking.

There is no comparison between being criticized for your looks, like many male politicians you cited; and being diminished and attacked because of your gender, because you are "too" good looking as a woman.

"A comparison to this would be the sexualizing of the "man-toy". Good looking, sexy and therefore probably stupid. He gets minimized because of his perceived sexuality. Women get this type of discrimintion all the time even if they aren't good looking."

Again, sexuality is only a problem to the extend that you are offended by it. Men get "objectified" all the time - only then it has to do with resources - either of wealth (which I'm comfortable assuming you would condone) or another form of social status (which the authoritarians here respect. That's why B.O's popularity drives them nuts).

Laura Ingraham's attacks on Edwards were precisely because he didn't have anything going for him other than his perceived good looks.

He was, and is, an empty-headed buffoon. His affected Southern drawl (which disappeared completely when he wasn't concentrating on it) was an act - as was pretty much every aspect of his public persona - up to and including his supposed devotion to Elizabeth.

"Laura Ingraham's attacks on Edwards were precisely because he didn't have anything going for him other than his perceived good looks.

He was, and is, an empty-headed buffoon. His affected Southern drawl (which disappeared completely when he wasn't concentrating on it) was an act - as was pretty much every aspect of his public persona - up to and including his supposed devotion to Elizabeth.

For an "empty-headed buffoon," she's obviously gotten under your skin. Even the mention of her name drives you into an instant rage despite the fact that the election was over months ago. Your obsessive hatred says that, no matter how much you protest to the contrary, you are scared to death of her.

No one talks about Edwards any more. Why? Because he's a nobody. An also-ran. Someone who has been exposed as the fraud he always was.

But you can't stop obsessing on Palin. There is all the proof you need that Palin and Edwards are nothing alike.

You hate her because you can't have her. You hate her because she's a woman who has achieved more her in life than you. You hate her because you can't cow her. You hate her because no more how much vile and spittle-flecked hatred you hurl at her, she refuses to curl up and die.

Your fear is evident in every word you've ever written about her. You may fool yourself and think it's anger, but she's never done anything to you or enacted a policy which in any way affected your life. So there's no justification for anger: all that's left is your visceral fear.

Being the official blogger for the Edwards campaign would explain why Amanda doesn't know enough to stop digging when she's in a hole. I mean, a person who would put their reputation on the line to protect Edwards illegal payments to his mistress from campaign funds has pretty pissed away any credibility a long time ago, don't you think?

In Jim's defense (or in the name of some needed charity) Palin has achieved more than me. She brought the town she governed into financial ruin, she uses the power of her office to score personal vendettas, and she thinks no one will notice that Alaska is still the welfare queen of the fifty states. Those are some hefty accomplishments!

There are plenty of people who comment on Palin without inducing the full-body shaking fury that your posts portray. There's no rational reason for that level of intensity considering the woman doesn't live anywhere near you, you're not forced to listen to her speeches, and her policy prescriptions have no effect on your life. But yet, you can't help yourself - because you can't stop thinking about how pathetic your own life is compared to a person who you can't stop thinking about.

I guarantee you that she has never given a moment's thought to one thing you have ever done or said in your entire life. But lots of people listen to her and think about what she says. But that isn't fair since you think you're so much smarter than her. But every day that goes by is proof that you're really not. And that burns you up inside. So much that you can't contain just how much petty jealousy you feel. It practically oozes from your every post.

You should really wipe the corners of your mouth, the little specks of white foam are starting to accumulate.

It's nice to say that you don't let little things like facts stand in the way of your emotionality.

Maybe when you can escape from your full-on hate and actually do something other than parrot long-since discredited talking points, then you'll be able to engage in rational discourse.

But it's all about your emotions, isn't it? You hate her, so she must be evil. Therefore, facts be damned, you're going to do everything in your powere to do so. That you are ultimately impotent to do so enrages you, which only feeds your cycle of hate.

What happened to you as a little girl to make you so full of hate? Did David Letterman stop by and show you too much love? According to Jeremy, it's not rape if he didn't use the word....

MUL, I know you have a very important project of filling in the holes dug earlier in the day by your co-worker at some obscure Roosevelt-era make-work program...but I'd wager that I've hired and fired more people than you have.

And that's really everyone's job when selecting a president -- we're hiring someone to work for us.

If Obama and Palin came into my office to interview for the position of manager, I'd like to think that I'd see through the smooth talk and confident demeanor on one side, and see past the odd Yooper accent and garbled syntax on the other, to their ideas.

A year ago or so, you were all about the Global Warming. Now that sunspot activity has dropped to near-zero, and temperatures have dropped, I haven't heard so much from you -- in fact, the entire mythical phenomenon is now called "Climate Change" (as if that's not what climates do). I wonder how much we'll hear from you about Obama in a few months, when unemployment crests 10%; or a couple of years from now, when inflation hits 20%.

"There are plenty of people who comment on Palin without inducing the full-body shaking fury that your posts portray."

This is actually funny. My posts go no further than any other of the typical, non-sexist/gender-based, innoffensive complaints re: Palin. She's corrupt, she's not well-informed, she appeals to folksy proud ignorance.

I really never give her a second thought. Now or then. But especially not now.

"You should really wipe the corners of your mouth, the little specks of white foam are starting to accumulate."

I think this is the image that comes to you when you look down at your tiny penis after watching the clips of Palin that you've jerked yourself off to. Your infatuation for her obviously goes much further than my indifference to her does.

"And that's really everyone's job when selecting a president -- we're hiring someone to work for us."

I actually agree with you on this, Pasta.

"If Obama and Palin came into my office to interview for the position of manager, I'd like to think that I'd see through the smooth talk and confident demeanor on one side, and see past the odd Yooper accent and garbled syntax on the other, to their ideas."

I don't know what kind of job you have, but am I incorrect in doubting that it doesn't rise to the level of responsibility as the Office of President? Further, her cultural appeal is part of what mattered in her would-be job description. Presidential candidates engage in a meaningless culture war more than others do. Again, this was her choice to do that. Others just figured it was just a big distraction - both on her part and that of your allies on the "hiring committee".

Teaching only the biology of reproduction isn't a libertarian stance, but an anti-education and entirely useless stance. It's the cowardly way out of teaching actual truth.

Why? How exactly is it cowardly? Reproduction is a fundamental part of biology, but beyond that, the modern accouterments of the sex act aren't exactly a necessary part of education. They're kind of "extra credit" as it were.

By way of comparison, some schools teach driver's ed, but it's not considered a compulsory part of education. Some schools teach typing, but the inability to type is not generally considered a hallmark of poor education.

Knowledge about birth control is good thing to have, but it's a) not a complicated enough subject to require classes dedicated to it, and b) controversial enough that a libertarian should feel uncomfortable forcing people to participate.

No, I haven't heard. I don't listen to talk radio. I understood the issue with Edwards was his own over inflated self worth and his vanity....fluffing the hair etc.

Nothing about that idea he deserved to be sexually assaulted sodomized (female version raped)or that because he is a man, with a family, he is somehow less capable of being a politician. "Oh Dear? How can he be a father and a politician at the same time.!! (mock horror)." We didn't hear any of this bullshit about Obama or Edwards or ANY male politician.

Edwards, IMNSHO, was disqualified because he is a sleazy trial lawyer who was only ever in the game for his own aggrandizement.

MUL said: "Some people are inspired by more than just violence and greed..."

I was actually inspired by the desire to continue employing the people that work for me, and to protect my family from violence.

Others are inspired by hypnotic, sonorous speakers spouting empty rhetoric, who after reaching power sieze weapons and control of industry, and form their own paramilitary force. Not me; I'm not a big fan of bratwurst or deisel engines, either.

MUL said: "...am I incorrect in doubting that it doesn't rise to the level of responsibility as the Office of President? Further, her cultural appeal...blah, blah, blah..."

I'm afraid that you missed my point. Suppose that I'm hiring one of them as the manager of a factory. For the company, this is every bit as important as POTUS is for the country....not that this matters. Her "cultural appeal" has nothing to do with it -- her ideas were better than his. Obama talks a good game -- that's it. Anyone who couldn't see this, and was swayed by his pseudointellectualism, was probably actually drawn to him for one of several other illegitimate factors:

a) White guilt (see our hostess for example)

b) Physical attraction (he's much more attractive than McCain, isn't he? And ooo, that voice.

c) The MTV cool factor.

d) Compensation for their own deep-down doubts about their own intellect.

Pastafarian said... Obama's certainly inspired me with his intellect and his attitude.

He's inspired me to look into moving our business to Costa Rica. And he's inspired me to stock up on 0.270 and 7mm Rem Mag ammunition.

Yeeaaaahhhhh!!

Another .270 and 7mm Mag fan.

I just bought 5 more boxes of .270, last in stock due to the run on guns and ammo due to Waxman, Schumer, Feinstein, Franks, McCarthy and other gun-banners getting closer to being in position to "Save the Children! The children!".

The .270, one of the best ever, most accurate, flat-shooting rounds. Capable of knocking a jack-booted storm trooper 300 yards away flat on his ass. Though if there was a semi-auto civilian version of the 7.62mm M-14, with a 20 round box mag, I'd buy it.

The 0.270 is the most under-rated caliber in the history of firearms. The 7mm Rem Mag is great too (theoretically perhaps the optimum round ballistically from 100m to 300m or so), but I've had better luck with the 0.270.

I was reading that "Climate Change" is also passe. The new phrase these environmental extortion groups have hired a PR firm to push for them is "atmospherical deterioration." (No, I'm not joking. Google it.)

After all, since even NASA was forced to admit that it was sun cycles - not man - that causing warming in the past, extortionists like Al Gore are scrambling to get more people to give them money before their little Nigerian scam ("Dear Sir...I am writing to in a matter of greatest import. I am looking to save the environment and if only you will supply me with your banking details, I will plant a tree in your name.) completely disintegrates. Give today before they have to change names again!

"For the company, this is every bit as important as POTUS is for the country....not that this matters."

Of course it doesn't matter. Who's to say your damn company is as important as the country? Companies form and companies go out of business, and not just because of what you as a business owner did. But because of the "creative destruction" of the "invisible hand" of the market. So spare me your self-serving presumption of superiority just because you happen to own a business.

"Her "cultural appeal" has nothing to do with it -- her ideas were better than his. Obama talks a good game -- that's it. Anyone who couldn't see this, and was swayed by his pseudointellectualism, was probably actually drawn to him for one of several other illegitimate factors:"

And which one was Larry Summers drawn to? Austan Goolsbee? Stop insulting others' intelligence and pretending you have a point. I did you the favor of engaging your comment. If you want to just be rude in return, then I can insult you back. But that, of course, disqualifies you from pretending to care about appealing to the intellect - mine or yours.

I just bought 5 more boxes of .270, last in stock due to the run on guns and ammo due to Waxman, Schumer, Feinstein, Franks, McCarthy and other gun-banners getting closer to being in position to "Save the Children! The children!"..

Oh Christ. You honestly fucking think you're somehow going to be unable to buy ammo anytime soon? Aside from the fact that paranoid wingnuts will beat you to it?

It's a nice principled stance. It's just to bad that it's too little and definitely to late and in the end really meaningless. This condemnation has no teeth. I wonder where NOW was when The elder Palin was being excoriated by the national press?

"What are you 22 year old? Serious question. The idiocy you spout can only come from extreme youth or extreme emotional retardation."

Wow. This coming from someone who couldn't tell the difference between a subsidy and insurance and who thinks that saying "fuck yourself with a frozen carrot" is a serious riposte.

So, assuming your question has any merit, what am I supposed to make of it? Serious question. That you are so evolved as to not care about a man's resources - so therefore no other women do either? That a similarly significant proportion of men don't have similarly superficial lists by which they judge the fitness of a female mate?

Hey- my emotional maturity has nothing to do with the state of the world. But that's because I can make a separation between the two things. Can you?

" The California legislature is considering a bill that would require serial numbers on all handgun ammunition, including rimfire ammunition, beginning in January of 2009. This bill, introduced by Senator Joseph Dunn and strongly supported by California Attorney General Bill Lockyer, is strongly opposed by SAAMI. The bill, if enacted, amounts to a de facto ammunition ban in California. Serialized ammunition would affect what is now a sophisticated, highly efficient bullet-manufacturing process that could lead to the bankruptcy of the ammunition industry in America."

"If SB 357 passes the California legislature, it will mandate that any handgun bullets and their cartridges manufactured, imported and sold in California be engraved with a serial number. The goal behind the serialization idea of matching bullets or their casings recovered at a crime scene with the purchaser of the ammunition may sound laudable in theory, but it is totally unrealistic. Manufacturers would be forced to abandon the California market or go bankrupt"

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?id=227

The answer to your question is YES. They didn't pass this THIS time. But they keep chipping away at our rights.

Why, yes, Garage, I honestly do. I've heard representatives of this administration talk about huge taxes on ammo -- like the cigarette tax, meant to influence behavior as much as increase revenue. Make rounds $3 each, instead of $0.50 each, and people will be unable to replenish what they use.

And perhaps you haven't heard about this -- here's your cite, I know you'll ask for one:

http://www.artsandammo.com/2009/03/25/government-opposes-recycling/

The government has stopped recycling spent brass. But I'm sure we're all paranoid "wingnuts".

As little as you know of economics, I'm willing to bet that you still know more than McCain. And Palin.

I doubt the handling of the crisis is perfect. But the GOP had no credibility on this after Bush's October Surprise. Too bad.

You want to say the Dems have conflicting interests in this. The GOP didn't? The GOP doesn't?

Obama probably knows the difference between having Wall Street outside the tent pissing in and having Wall Street inside the tent pissing out. The GOP, OTOH, just doesn't make a distinction between the tent and the piss. Let alone who's supposed to be in that tent. Remember how tiny they made it?

It used to be the party of the "Big Tent". Not anymore.

Keep up the insults, man. It pretty much assures me that you don't give a damn about my interests. Maybe Obama doesn't either. But he's got more credibility than you and has been given a chance to prove that he takes the idea of competence more seriously than your cronies and lackeys do.

MUL said: "Who's to say your damn company is as important as the country?..."

No, our company isn't as important as the country, but it doesn't matter when we're using the analogy of hiring for a position of manager of the company, or hiring for POTUS. In either case, Palin was the better candidate than Obama, despite how well he can read aloud, and very...slowly...and...haltingly...compose his words into complete sentences on-the-fly.

I'm not hiring a reader or a speaker. I'm hiring a manager.

I'm sorry that I offended you, MUL, I didn't mean to. What I mean to say is this: I think that you, and many of the people who voted for Obama (our hostess, for example), are far too intelligent to have been taken in by the empty hopenchange populist gibberish, and the socialist theories that were discredited during the Reagan administration. I think that other subconscious factors led to your poor personnel decision.

"I think that other subconscious factors led to your poor personnel decision."

I happen to think that anyone who voted for Bush in '04 and doesn't regret it (and I had no preference at the time; I saw serious flaws in both candidates) should be disqualified from making this statement.

At the least, presidents should be given more than just one 90-day window for performance evaluation (and I bet you made your evaluation way before that, right?). They get four years at least. Given the enormity of the job, the judgment of history is not just about quarterly performance evaluations, as Bush reminded us. Only problem is, the scale of his fuck-ups weren't immediately obvious until last fall, eight years in.

I'll try to avoid consciously offending you as well. But to say that you're juding Obama on variables that you would never think of applying to another candidate is, I think, pretty darn likely - all the hope/change rhetoric notwithstanding. The fact is that, given the scale of the current challenges, any judgment should be even that much more qualified.

I'll put my level of economic knowledge up against yours any day. I'll also say that, if you had any economic knowledge, you'd have known better than to cite the Obama administration or anyone in it as an authority on the subject.

Every single move this administration has made has in some way added to economic uncertainty, an undermining of contract law, or had a negative effect on the economy.

Cairo apology speech and publicly abandoning Israel? Increasing oil prices due to the increasing likelihood of violence interrupting the flow of oil.

Craptacular spending? Jacking up interest rates and squeezing consumers and businesses out of the market.

Increasing CAFE standards and appointing know-nothings to run car companies? Making sure that the auto industry sales fall even further.

Making noises about VAT taxes? Depresssing consumer consumption.

...on and on...

If you had even the first clue about economics, you would have known enough to keep your pie hole shut. That you didn't only shows, once again, that you're talking about something way over your pay grade.

Stick to the cheap insults as that seems to be the only thing that you have a mastery of. Anything involving actual thought or requiring knowledge just results in your embarrassing yourself with your ignorance.

Go over and join Jeremy in the dunce corner. You two are truly two of a kind.

PastaFirst of all that order from the DoD originated under Bush. Second, that order has been reversed. That won't keep the zombie lies and paranoia from chugging right along though. The company that recycles the spent cartridges indeed is backordered on supply because of high demand, and not because Obama wants to take your guns and ammo.

And (with the exception of one Virginia chapter) NOW got down on their hands and knees and swallowed Clinton. And they have the audacity to make a cheap shot by implying WE have double-standards?

Besides, why can't NOW simply come out and say Wrong is Wrong. Why make it liberal VS conservative in the first place? Because they're all a bunch of whores prostituting their intellectual integrity out to the Left?

Dear Lord! People are still going on about this Letterman "scandal"? I guess NOW saw an opportunity to get in the press.

All this over a Letterman Top Ten List that he didn't even write and he's already apologized for?

I'd tell Palin to lighten the fuck up, but her outrage is just a manipulation of the media to get her back in the news. She's even pretending the joke couldn't possibly have been referring to her older daughter, Bristol, even though the joke was obviously referring to Bristol whether she was at the game or not.

It's fitting NOW chimed in because Palin's latest statements sound like the old school leftist PC police (which NOW was and is a part of) plaguing college campuses before the backlash against political correctness put them somewhat in check. Yeah, Palin, keep trying to make a federal case out of a joke, and paint Letterman as some perverted rapist who must be forced to apologize to women everywhere before being fired and crucified.

It's hard to believe Howard Stern actually managed to have a radio program on the free airwaves all those years, with all the people who spaz out over a few low-brow jokes.